PCN from ZZPS

Rugbylad

Received an NTK from ZZPS 69 days after a windscreen ticket. Appealed the NTK 4 days after receiving NTK.

ZZPS then sent a letter 28 days later without any response or acknowledgment of the appeal, increasing the charge from £40 to £100.

Couple of points I'd like clarification on:

1. When I pointed out that they had not replied to the appeal yet increased the charge, they belatedly said i had appealed 28 days after the notice to driver. Doesn't the 28 day rule apply to the NTK? Hence their basis for rejection is false.

2. Doesn't the fact that the NTK was issued well outside if the 56 day limit as specified by PoFA 2012 mean that keeper cannot be held liable.

I could go on as their letter is not the clearest and appears not to have the right wording. However, was hoping the fact that NTK issuance is in breach of 56 days means i can now ignore any further correspondence??

Redx

yes is the simple answer

report them to the BPA and DVLA and enclose a timeline and copies of their paperwork, your appeal, proof of postage etc

report them for not offering a popla code

no you cannot "just ignore them", but it gives you (as RK) a good reason for not being held accountable due to their breach of POFA 2012 , as long as they dont know who the driver was

so give it the BPA to sort out , plus the dvla too

also try to get the landowner to cancel the charge

Coupon-mad

Same as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5125618

Happens all the time and post #6 of the Newbies thread covers it. Complain to the BPA without 'setting the scene' about the day in question - i.e. NOT talking about who was driving.

Rugbylad

Will keep you posted.......

Understand the BPA appeal point. What leverage is possible using the DVLA route as well?

Redx

reading this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5153260 it appears ZZPS may be a debt collector, so maybe your "NTK" came from the debt collector and not the PPC ?

check your paperwork to see if a PPC is mentioned

complaint to the DVLA is due to somebody ? (zzps ?) requesting RK details outside of POFA 2012 but not allowing them the correct chance to appeal ( ie:- the NTK is usually issued by the PPC )

Coupon-mad

If it's the first letter it's appealable but not otherwise, as we know. Complaining to the DVLA means the BPA have to log the complaint and can't pretend it doesn't exist and was just a 'query'. They have to report on complaints to the DVLA and so we always say make sure the DVLA know about your complaint too.

Rugbylad

This is what happened:

Original NTK issued by PCN Admin Centre (a trading name of ZZPS Ltd) On behalf of the creditor named as Vinci Park Car Parking Services Ltd. I appealed to PCNAC 4 days after receipt of NTK. They did not provide a rejection letter nor an independent appeal code. This NTK was issued 69 days after a windscreen ticket.

30 days after the date of the original NTK, i received a second letter issued by ZZPS, the debt recovery people, using the same registered office as PCN Admin Centre. They are claiming they do not need to provide me with the appeal number because i was 28 days after the windscreen ticket. I was under the impression the 28 day limit applied to the NTK not the windscreen ticket.

BPA appeal sounds as if it should be against PCN Admin Centre?

Coupon-mad

It's not a BPA 'appeal' and the complaint should be about the original PPC. Vinci. In the complaint, don't talk about who was driving nor 'waiting for the NTK' (don't even call it a NTK, shows too much knowledge)!'

Redx

VINCI are the PPC

ZZPS are the debt collector

complaint to BPA and DVLA is about VINCI not following the BPA CoP

HO87

Also have a read of this current thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5153260

Post #4 is relevant to the background of ZZPS. ZZPS is one of a small number of companies (3 at the last count) that should come under the heading of "Spawn of Roxburghe" and may well be offering a back-office function for PPC's in much the same way as Roxborg did with PCN Services. That is of course just a slightly upmarket version of what debt collectors do for a living everyday i.e. barrel-scraping.

One is tempted to suggest that with the appearance of Roxborg's offspring that these companies are living proof of the saying that it is possible to take the boy out of debt collecting...

parkingnuts

Its rugbylad under a new user name.

Thought i'd give you an update after taking the advice to appeal to BPA and the DVLA.

DVLA gave the usual rubbish response that the NTK did not mention PoFA hence i was not being pursued under PoFA and the PPC is therefore not bound by it. I am also fairly sure that my complaint will not count as a complaint since the DVLA now wants me to show that the PPC invoked PoFA.

Here is the full reply:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Thank you for your e-mail in respect of a parking charge notice issued by Vinci Car Parks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In your correspondence, you have raised the issue that Vinci Car Parks are not applying the principles of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 correctly and that they are breaching the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I can see that Vinci Car Parks does not state on their Parking Charge Notice that they are pursuing you under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore they are unable to pursue you using this legislation, this however also means that they are not bound by this legislation. If you have evidence that supports your claim that Vinci Car Parks has quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in any of their correspondence concerning this case, please forward copies onto me and I will investigate further.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]DVLA release data under Regulation 27.1(e) of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, whereby the Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The release of information to private car parking companies is considered a reasonable cause. Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. This does not infringe the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that personal data held on the vehicle register can be used in this way. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The DVLA has a range of measures in place to ensure that all companies are subject to appropriate controls and safeguards. All car-parking companies requesting keeper data must be members of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association, which has a mandatory code of practice that all members must adhere to. The British Parking Association (BPA) is an appropriate Accredited Trade Association and its code of practice is published on their website at bpa[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Vinci Car Parks is a member of the BPA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you should contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA code of practice must be adhered to by all members in order to maintain their membership. The code of practice is strictly monitored by the BPA, as this is a condition of their accreditation. If they fail to police their code, they could lose their accreditation and their members would lose their ability to request DVLA data.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I hope this e-mail has clarified the Agency’s position.[/FONT]


Simple problem with this line, which i have subsequently found is an on-going complaint against the DVLA, is that PPCs cannot pursue keepers outside of PoFA. So, the "reasonable cause" only applies when a PPC uses the data in a legitimate way, and if the PPC cannot stick to the timelines then it is not a legitimate use of data. The DVLA gives a legalese reply to hide the fact that they are happy to make money supplying data to these incompetent outfits even though PPCs couldn't organise a teddy bear's picnic let alone stick to legal guidleines. Hence the DVLA is negligent under the DPA since they have not put in place adequate controls that subsequent use of released data to these cowboys is used in a legitimate manner. Since ZZPS haven't kept to the 56 day deadlines, the NtK is invalid. I will therefore appeal to the IOC against the DVLA.

I have also appealed to BPA against Vinci. Am awaiting their response.

ZZPS sent me the following "scary" email following a reply to them highlighing their incompetence

Please contact ZZPS Limited in relation to a personal business matter. You can reply to this email, telephone us, or visit our websites.

It is an automated response!! Pure scare tactics, giving the impression of needing to pay whilst in fact not actually denying the fact that you have a valid point.

This was then followed by:

Thank you for your email.
Please note that the letter you received is compliant.


On the balance of probabilities as it is your vehicle, a court may decide that you were the driver.
In this case the debt regarding this PCN would be enforceable.


If indeed you were not the driver then kindly supply a name and address and we shall pursue them.

Another automated response showing no comprehension of the content of my reply - all a ruse to get you to name the driver.

No more correspondence to ZZPS from now on - it is true that this just encourages them to send this nonsense.

Will await BPA reply, then take them on in court if necessary.

I'll keep you posted.